"Very special circumstances" are required by The Government's National Planning Policy Framework for there to be development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to be outweighed by the benefit. That there is nowhere else for the homes to be built is cited as the special circumstances. The previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council (the "2009 Core Strategy") identified land South of Leamington for development. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington. The reasons for not considering this now are stated that there is not as higher profit expected for the developers.

I'm afraid the era of the quick building buck has gone. A sustainable approach to land use needs to be taken in general in the UK due to the limitation of space as we are a small densely populated island. Other, much bigger countries such as France and the US seem to value their space more and come up with more innovative solutions: Sinking multi storey car parks below ground to use the space above for open space and mixed used accommodation, this would free up several acres of land in Leamington centre alone allowing houses to be built where existing infrastructure can be used or improved benefitting many. Higher density solutions need to be used. There are in the UK an appalling number of "empties" which are vacant properties that are not lived in as highlighted by Architect George Clarke in his recent TV series. We cannot continue with such short sightedness as to continue to eat up swathes of this beautiful countryside with more building and more rail (HS2) "solutions" these do not address the cause or provide a viable long term solution as there is no going back once the land has gone. Yes, these are more expensive solutions but what price do we put on our countryside and it's future, it is so much of what England is, that the opening ceremony of the Olympics is depicting it! The era of a quick buck has gone and developers need to know that we will not continue to develop and expand town boundaries.

Our towns of Leamington, Warwick & Kenilworth have suffered in the recession and as a result there are disused shops, disused pubs, disused business premises, disused garages, disused schools and many "out of town" poor quality shopping complexes with little footfall. A more innovative approach needs to be taken here - turning some of these premises into residential use, they already have a lot of the required infrastructure, if this is inappropriate turn them back in to green fields, woodlands and parks. We should protect the remaining greenbelt at all cost, it is a finite and incredibly valuable resource, we should not just delay proposals to build on it but simply never allow any development of it, it is not a sustainable solution and what legacy do that leave to our children and grandchildren.
A "buffer" of 1400 homes has been included in the number of houses Warwick District Council believes will be necessary between now and 2026. There is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals if this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions.

We would like to register the strongest objections to the proposed North Leamington Development, contained in the Local Plan. Our reasons are several, as follows:

* The designation of areas of Green Belt was done for a reason and that reason has not changed. It is not possible to put a price on the amenity value of having ready access to green areas for walkers and people enjoying other recreational pursuits. These enrich the human experience and must never be sacrificed unadvisedly. This area is extremely blessed with wild life, which will be obliterated by the proposed development. When will we realise that we should be responsible custodians of our environment, not despoilers? Surely the destruction of rain forests provides enough evidence that there is no going back, once the vandalism has been perpetrated! The Green Belt must be preserved.

* One of the principles of Green Belt strategy was to avoid urban sprawl - the current proposals clearly ignore this and would destroy the distinctive character of the areas affected. They also constitute the "thin end of a wedge", in contravention of the strategy to avoid urban sprawl.

* As populations grow there is obviously a need for additional housing. However, we have a sacred trust to pass onto succeeding generations the kind of environment that encapsulates the very reasons why people choose to come to live here.

* It is fundamental that we make maximum use of existing brown field sites before considering any incursion into areas designated as Green Belt. These should be exhaustively pursued and utilised to the maximum. We must not allow the easy profits of developers to influence our longer term obligation to preserve what is good about our environmental inheritance.

* There is no convincing evidence that these proposals prove to be "the very exceptional circumstances" required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

* It is important that we encourage local people to shop within the Leamington area and preserve the special nature of the retail shopping experience. Independent shops are currently having severe problems in remaining profitable; we must aim to increase the variety of retail outlets to bring prosperity and vitality to the area and improve existing parking facilities. Any additional difficulties in accessing the town will inevitably drive people to use "out of town" facilities.

* There have been instances of flooding in some of the areas included in the proposals. Further concreting of land on the scale proposed will exacerbate these possibilities, unless significant expense is incurred in avoidance schemes and huge infrastructure changes, which will blight what is treasured today.

* In an age when "transparency" is a watchword for the activities of government and public authorities, at least the Executive Summary of the Local Plan, produced in May 2012, should have been circulated in hard copy form promptly to all residents affected. Posting on-line documentation alone gives the impression of a local authority that wants to exclude a proportion of the population and to railroad its proposals, with scant regard for the wishes of residents who support the area and pay their community charge.

We believe that the Local Plan is very bad for this area and we hope that wiser councils will prevail by those who wish Leamington to prosper in the long term. We, therefore urge that the current proposals be rejected.

An era of austerity dictates that profligacy can no longer be tolerated. Spending constraints are a
necessity with budgets at all levels. The following comments are submitted to address this particular
aspect.
Significant development opportunities have been neglected in favour of a financially wasteful
scheme. It has been nigh impossible to find the logic for the planning decisions made. Glossaries
and Source References in the published material appear to have been 'lost in translation'; and public
access to detailed Planning and Survey documents is limited.
No objective audit of Housing Need (quality and quantity), appears to have taken place. Equally
lacking is an audit of Existing Development Opportunity, including canvassing and incentives for
Windfall Sites offered up for consideration now or for release within the next 15 years. If demand
for these new houses is a fiction, then they will blight the area and depress market values generally
for the whole of the District. Added to which Employment Opportunities cannot be guaranteed for
the budgeted influx of additional people.
In South Leamington, we have the near perfect basis for a 'Transport Hub', based on the existing
Railway Station. Similarly, there is a 'Commercial Hub' already in existence immediately adjacent
to the 'Transport Hub' extending to the Warwick Gates development, just begging to be extended
and developed. So why have Planners shied away from exploiting these remarkable assets and
advantages ?
The selection and use of large areas of Greenbelt land for development is irresponsible, being
contrary to accepted National and Local policy. 'Very Exceptional Circumstances' have not been
demonstrated, nor can they. Once this land has been developed it is lost to all for ever, depriving
those living in the District, of a much loved green lung and offering opportunity for quiet, peaceful
recreation in an attractive environment close to Leamington Spa. This unacceptable sense of
impending loss is not confined to those living in the two parishes or those adjacent to them !
Large areas of the best local Agricultural Land, in a very sensitive area, have been selected for
development regardless of the ultimate consequences, they include :
a)
The loss of land devoted to Food Production.
b)
Irreparable damage to the local ecosystem, comprising the watershed to this loop of the Avon.
c)
Reduced separation between Leamington Spa & Kenilworth and the loss of separate identity.
d)
The present attractive gateway to North Leamington Spa will be significantly diminished.
The Social, Economic & Environmental losses incurred by developing this land far outweigh the
gains, particularly when it is perfectly clear that there are realistic and preferable alternative
development options, - but see later.
It is generally acknowledged that World demand for food fast approaches the tipping point, where
demand is set to exceed supply. This can only accelerate under the influence of Global Warming,
Climate change and the detrimental effect on Weather Systems. This in turn introduces the
circumstances leading to significant international conflict. It follows that UK food production must
be stepped up and be geared towards greater self-sufficiency. This is the only way to avoid serious
food shortages the like of which most cannot contemplate and which few UK residents, alive today,
have experienced.
At least one thriving Farming Business will be seriously damaged and its viability put at risk.
Further loss of Greenbelt land is threatened, as the planned development unfolds identifying sites
for the supporting commercial development, new road systems and infill. This is only hinted at in
the Local Plan, but it is an inevitable consequence. This further encroachment on Greenbelt land
could destroy as much Greenbelt land again.
Two road developments are contemplated, both of which are unnecessary and will achieve little.
The dual carriageway proposed for the A452, can only transfer congestion from one place to
another, slightly more quickly. The proposed new Northern relief road (additional to the A46 ), can
only realistically be used preferentially by those living in the houses comprising the proposed new
development in Blackdown and South of Old Milverton Lane.
Although the planners state the cost of this exercise will fall to the developers, an ambiguity is
apparent signifying there will be a cost over-and-above that met by the developers, which can only
fall ultimately on Rate Payers; this element has not been quantified. The allowance for the Northern
Relief road of £28m seems unduly small bearing in mind the problems faced in driving a road
through a large area prone to flooding, together with the construction of a new bridge over the
Avon and probably a new bridge over the Railway (or significant re-enforcement of the existing
bridge). The additional unknown costs will inevitably fall to Rate Payers.
The most important financial/economic consideration is that despite the recently established
comprehensive infrastructure South of Leamington; it is now proposed to develop North of
Leamington which will involve the construction of new roads and a whole new infrastructure to
cater specifically for the 1,980 houses intended. This is an extravagance which cannot be justified.
Infrastructure includes the major services, Water, Gas & Electricity, Sewers, Roads, Rail, Canal,
Recreational & Faith facilities, Schools, Supermarkets, Restaurants, Public Houses, etc. All are
successful and well established in South Leamington and in many cases lend themselves to
expansion and development. How can it be sensible to duplicate much of this North of the town,
only to exacerbate the existing traffic and parking congestion by encouraging unnecessary cross
town interaction ?
Access to major road and public transport networks seems to have been largely ignored in deciding
where to develop. Access to the M40 and Rail Network looms large in any sensible planning
decision. The Mainline Rail Stations and Coach Services have seemingly been ignored. Housing
and Workplaces (requiring large work forces) ought to have been considered for location within
walking/cycling distance of Leamington, Warwick, Warwick Parkway and Hatton Railway Stations.
All this emphasises the imperative to develop South, East and/or West of Leamington, even if solely
for the one consideration of access.
It will not have escaped notice that Windfall Development opportunities within the towns and
villages have been ignored. They appear to have been 'airbrushed' out of existence. There are
significant areas of Whitefield & Brownfield sites available. There are areas of prime redevelopment
opportunity constantly offered up. The old Fire Station, the old Ford Foundry,
redundant schools, the many empty shops constantly referred to in the local newspaper as a disgrace
and a blight on local communities. Past Planning decisions in this and other towns have resulted in
most town shopping centres becoming a ghost of a previous existence through the enabling of 'out
of town shopping centres'. So why not re-populate town centres, at basement, ground and above
ground level ? Flats over shops have long had an appeal for the young and those relying on public
transport. This way of living is accepted as 'normal' in London and other major towns and cities.
If it is seen as particularly desirable to have the major part of the new development largely in one
piece, for community identity, sharing infrastructure costs, services etc. The Prince Charles inspired
'Poundbury Development' urban extension to Dorchester offers a useful model. What is wrong with
building a 'Royal Poundbury' style extension' to Royal Leamington Spa ?
There are two natural sites for such a development. One to the East, between Radford Semele and
Cubbington; another to the West, between Warwick Parkway and Hatton Stations. Achieving this
requires the application of objective contemporary problem solving for planning decisions fit for the
longer term; and with the Environment, People & Communities, for once, given the consideration
they deserve, rather than pandering to the wishes of Developers, Architects, Planners and Politicians
who so rarely live in the houses they cause to be constructed for others to inhabit.

I write to register my views on Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for its Local Plan published for public consultation on 1 June 2012. In particular I wish to record my objection to the proposal to redraw the green belt north of Leamington to permit the construction of:
 1980 dwellings,
 out of town shopping facilities,
 light industrial units,
 schools
 park and ride facilities
 changes to the road network to cope with the increased traffic resulting from this development including the proposal for a "Northern Relief Road"
in the parishes of Old Milverton and Blackdown.
I have no doubt that there is a shortage of housing in the Country and that Warwick District will continue to expand, creating further need for housing and employment. However the current proposals are ill conceived and have no regard for the Council's previous planning policy. This policy was to direct expansion to the south of Leamington and Warwick where it has already invested in the necessary infrastructure and employment opportunities to support growth.
The elected Tory party majority has stated that its political ambition is to "spread the pain" of growth around our Towns. Such an ambition cannot be supported by sound planning policies and contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework which requires there to be "very special circumstances" to permit the development in the Green Belt proposed in the Preferred Option for the Local Plan.
National Planning Policy Framework requires "Very Special Circumstances"
 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
 As well as "very special circumstances" The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development.
Holly Cottage
Old Milverton
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV32 6SA
Email Jmlander@aol.com
Telephone 01926339112
 From the various public meetings that I have attended, Warwick District Council's argument appears to be that the "very special circumstances" are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built.
 However, in the "2009 Core Strategy" Warwick District Council identified land south of Leamington (not in the Green Belt), as being suitable for development. This land is still available. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support the development, and the new residents who will live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the Town centres.
 The 2009 Core Strategy is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the "very special circumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are invalid.
 Warwick District Council argues that if the development is concentrated in a few geographical areas (for example to the south of Leamington) that lack of choice will depress demand for the houses. No evidence is offered for this statement. I have spoken to developers who do not support this argument. They point out that similar sized developments have been delivered in the past. They also state that in practice the development will be phased over 15 years, it will not be delivered by a single construction company (land will be on sold to different developers) and that competition, choice and demand will be created by different areas of the sites having different characteristics.
 Warwick District Council's argument about very special circumstances also ignores a fundamental economic fact that need for houses and demand for houses can be equalised by price. If the new houses are priced correctly demand will satisfy the need for houses. In taking the decision to create demand for house by building in the Green Belt north of Leamington, Warwick District Council is helping to maintain land owners' and developers' profits. Consideration of the land owners' and developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt.
 The Preferred Options quite correctly makes much of the need to provide affordable housing and sets the requirement for 40% of the homes on new developments to meet the need for affordable housing. The Preferred Option is to build 45% of the new homes in the Green Belt. This land will probably be more expensive to acquire and together with the probable higher demand for houses in the Green Belt will result in these homes costing more. The Preferred Option to build in the Green Belt does not therefore support the preferred option for 40% of the new homes to meet the need for affordable housing.
The Green Belt
 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out five purposes for Green Belt land. In summary these are, to prevent urban sprawl of built up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, to protect the country side from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land.
 The proposal to develop in the Green Belt in Blackdown and Old Milverton contravenes each of these five purposes:
o It encourages urban sprawl
o It reduces the "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 11/2 miles encouraging the merging of these two towns
o It encourages encroachment the countryside
o It will destroy the setting and the special characteristics of Kenilworth and Leamington each of which has great historic interest
 The Preferred Options ignore Warwick District Council's Joint Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown. The Study concluded that the land at Blackdown was not suitable for development and that the land at Old Milverton was only worthy of further study because "there were no other towns to the north, from which the Green Belt would provide protection from encroachment [and] there were other physical barriers to the wider open countryside." This conclusion on the land at Old Milverton has ignored the resulting coalescence with Leek Wooton and Kenilworth.
Recreation Value of Old Milverton and Blackdown
 The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, riders, and cyclists. It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to be enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park land would detract from, rather than enhance its value.
 Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation. If the proposals go ahead it is only a matter of time before it is also absorbed by Leamington.
Proposed New Roads
 Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
 Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion.
 The dual carriage way will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateway to Leamington and southern gateway to Kenilworth.
 A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. Traffic flows tend to be north to south rather than east to west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns. If the development does not go ahead the road will not be required.
 A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the Green Belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
 The A46 already effectively provides a Northern Relief Road.
 If the proposed development is concentrated in the South of Leamington there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost than the £28m allocated to construct a "Northern Relief Road". The resultant savings could be used to enhance other services such as improvements to Warwick Hospital.
New Out of Town Stores
 Warwick District Council's vision is to make "Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit". A key element which already makes Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit is the number of independent retailers and the pleasant and unique "feel" that this gives to our High Streets.
 The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick as further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
 More out of town shopping and the A452 dual carriage way between Leamington and Kenilworth will detract from the uniqueness of our Towns making them like any other in the UK and deter visitors.
Loss of Agricultural Land
 There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.
Number of Homes included in the Forecasts
 Warwick District Council has added nearly 1400 homes to the number that it anticipates will be required so as to include a "buffer" in the forecasts. If this "buffer" is removed from the forecast there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals.
 Insufficient account has been taken of potential windfall sites in the forecasts. The model used to calculate the number of houses required appears flawed by using average data over recent years for demand rather than projecting on the basis of the current downward trends.
Alternative sites
 If the requirement is to "spread the pain" of development around Warwick and Leamington why is the preferred plan to concentrate development on a north, south axis rather than east, west? There are two sites west of Warwick that have been identified which are not in the Green Belt but are not included in the Preferred Options.
 In the 2009 Core Strategy land was identified to the west and east of Radford Semele outside the Green Belt. I understand that the land east of Radford Semele has been rejected in the current Preferred Options because of gas pipe lines. Why do the gas pipe lines rule out the entire site for development when the building constraints only prevent construction within 100 metres of the pipelines? Surely these resulting corridors could be used imaginatively to encourage wild life or as cycle routes.
 The area around Grove Farm to the south of Leamington (not Green Belt land) was included in the 2009 Core Strategy. I understand that this has been excluded from the Preferred Options because there are concerns that it would lead to coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook (also not in the Green Belt). The 2009 Core Strategy proposed an area of restraint to prevent coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook which could still be introduced. If preventing coalescence is so important why is Warwick District Council encouraging development in the Green Belt north of Leamington when one of the main purposes of the Green Belt is to prevent towns merging? It just does not make any sense.
Conclusions
The areas identified for development in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan issued by Warwick District Council simply fulfil the political aspirations of the majority of the Council's members to "spread the pain of the development". The Preferred Options are not based on sound planning principals. Very Special Circumstances to permit 45% of the development in the Green Belt and in particular in Old Milverton and Blackdown cannot be demonstrated. There are other suitable sites for development which are not in the Green Belt. The building of a new "Northern relief Road" and turning the A452 into dual carriageway will not address any of the existing traffic congestion. Developing the Green Belt in Old Milverton and Blackdown will deprive the community of an area of countryside close to Leamington and Warwick that is used by many for recreational purposes. The area of Green Belt between Leamington and Kenilworth is particularly important because it provides a narrow "green lung"between the two towns, preventing their coalescence and preserving their identities. It should continue to be protected. I therefore urge Warwick District Council to reconsider its Preferred Options to develop this area.

We are both residents of South town who have lived in Leamington for over 30 years, both in north Leamington and currently South of the town.
We were and are always aware of the particular character and personality of the town, it's buildings, it's green spaces, avenues of trees and access to the surrounding countryside.

Leamington is a particularly beautiful town which has preserved much of it's individuality and historic integrity and attracts a lot of people.
The northern approach from Kenilworth has retained an elegance which continues into the town while both Stoneleigh and Old Milverton have a country approach which is in keeping with the rural locations.
Old Milverton is accessible from Northumberland Road via the footpath and People use it constantly as a leisurely, countryside, route from Leamington to Old Milverton and beyond to Guys Cliffe in northern Warwick. It is an facility which is an obvious and well enjoyed asset to the area.

Our concerns are that the proposed plans for development as outlined will have the effect of changing the integrity of the northern approaches to Leamington and create a suburban aspect with the visual impact and uniqueness of the the Leamington approach being destroyed. Similarly the eroding of farming land between north Leamington and Old Milverton would have a negative effect of Old Milverton's particular historic character as any significant increase in building habitation in the north of town will require an extensive expansion of the existing network of roads in order to accommodate the increase in traffic thereby damaging the qualities that keep North Leamington roads so special.

We think that South Leamington could benefit from a sensitive and well considered accommodation of housing, without the effect of engulfing Bishop's Tachbrook. The area needs a serious investment and revitalisation and this is an opportunity to drive its development. A good transport infrastructure already exists in the area, with fast road links via the A46 in both directions and the M40 motorway.
Railway stations already exist in Leamington and at Warwick Parkway, neither of which would draw traffic through the centre of town. It seems sensible that the main thrust of any development should be to the benefit of the south Leamington area.

We are writing to object to Warwick District Council's proposed Local Plan Preferred Options (May 2012) which effectively allows the development of 1980 new homes on designated Green Belt land to the north of Leamington, on sites at Old Milverton and Blackdown.
Whilst we can see the need for new housing to help the local economy grow, we do not believe that there are proven `exceptional circumstances' as required by national guidelines to permit the development of Green Belt land, particularly as there are other suitable sites which have already been identified by WDC as "suitable for development" and which require less spending on the infrastructure to support this development. Such land exists off Europa Way and south of Bishops Tachbrook. In our opinion the Preferred Options paper does not provide the evidence required under the National Planning Policy Framework to permit the proposed Green Belt development. The loss of publicly accessible open spaces in these two areas would deprive North Leamington of a valuable amenity area used by large numbers of local residents for dog walking, jogging, cycling and walking. These are all activities which are being promoted at both national and local levels in an effort to encourage more healthy and active lifestyle choices. These areas are also a habitat for a diverse range of wildlife including birds, small mammals (including bats), insects and hedgerow plants.
The NPFF clearly outlines that the purpose of a protected Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl. If these areas of land to the north of Leamington were to be developed this could lead to the merging of Leamington, Old Milverton, Hill Wotton and Kenilworth in the future. This would be even more likely if the proposed plan allows for Kenilworth to expand southwards. This coalescence would lead to the eventual loss of the individual towns and villages distinct identities.
The current infrastructure would be unable to cope with the proposed new development and WDC's solution in the form of the North Leamington Relief Road would result in additional destruction of the countryside around Old Milverton.
For these reasons we believe that the plan is flawed and contrary to the government National Policy Planning Framework.

As attached

Document scanned.

I would like to object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local plan.
This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists including the 7 employees of my business that is located in Old Milverton.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.
The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.
Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I have been given to understand that there is a proposal to build houses and employment facilites on the designated Green Belt area north of Leamington Spa in the Blackdown/Old Milverton Area.
This is a terrible idea to deliberately set out to erase an area of green belt with yet more bricks, cement and tarmac. It is also a betrayal of trust. I understood that the green belt, agreed at both national and local levels, underpinned by an Act of Parliament, was there to provide a permanent lung of much needed open land, not just for agriculture but also for urban dwellers to have access to the countryside.
1,980 houses and a major highway through Old Milverton is, I believe, a proposal that sets out to destroy valued countryside. I would even suggest parts of Warwickshire are already over developed; the growth around both Leamington and Stratford has been phenomenal of late putting enormous strain on local road systems. The highway through Old Milverton will lead immediately into already heavily trafficked roads, the A445 Rugby Road to the south and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the north. Which means those living in the proposed development will be joining those already commuting to Coventry, Birmingham, via the Warwick By Pass and the M40. Think of possibly 2000 more cars.
Growth in the proposed area brings Leamington closer to Kenilworth. I thought green belts were agreed to prevent urban sprawl?
There are also questions it seems to me about infrastructure; provision for education and health, with its schools and medical surgeries and access for the emergency services? And shops. Supermarkets are on the other side of town.
With the mention of local employment the question that springs to mind is of what kind and how much? There still seems to be acres of vacant land on a designated site for industrial development west of Aylesford School off the Stratford Road, the A429.
Whilst there is possibly a great need for the provision of housing in the Warwick District I'm left asking the question of about how much of the development will be for first time buyers, will there be a mix of council housing or is all for independent, private developers?
I suggest you return to the drawingboard before thrusting a building plant into green belt.

I have recently learnt about your proposed development in the green belt land to the north of Leamington.
I am distressed to hear about this and upon further exploration believes there are valid grounds to object to this:
1. That you have failed to demonstrate the very exceptional circumstances set out in national guidelines to permit the development in the Green Belt
2. This land is an important amenity to the local area providing open area for exercise (walk, run, dog walk etc). We have very little open land locally that is easily accessible from the town centre and away from busy roads.
3. My understanding is that green belt land should not be developed when other land is available for development. There is land available for development east of A452 and South of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook. These sites have not been included in the preferred options sites.
4. The preferred option paper does not provide the evidence required
5. The local plan does not meet with the principals of the NPPF
6. The purpose of greenbelt is to protect urban sprawl. Your proposal encourages this. Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth will further physically merge with each other which risks loosing their individual identities and communities
7. There appears to be over provision of housing based relying on projections from a period of growth
8. The current infrastructure will not support this growth and would require huge investment and additional land.
In summary I believe the plans to be flawed and strongly object

My wife and I hereby formally submit our objection to the proposal to build on the greenbelt immediately North of Northumberland Rd. We regularly use this amenity for walks through the fields to Old Milverton with our daughter as well as with friends, neighbours and family. It is a lovely natural resource and an important part of the rural heritage that surrounds and makes Leamington unique. We respectfully and strongly object to building on greenbelt land and would urge the Council to utilise non-greenbelt land for this development instead.

Please let us know if you would like to discuss this objection further with us as we would be more than happy to oblige.

I object to new housing being built on Green Belt in the north of Leamington Spa.
First of all it is a nice area for local people to do some exercises and to charge themselves for the next week, for their work in the offices and factories by having a breath of fresh air and listening to the songs of birds.
There are so many beautiful trees there. You can have a walk, enjoy the green environment; take your children there to watch the birds and play games. It takes years for the trees to grow and there is no reason to destroy it all in days. We must think about the consequences for the nature and climate when we try to make such an important decision as building on Green belt.
Secondly, why to use Green belt land if there is other land available for the development. The Council identified that there is land east of A 452 and south of Heathcote. There is an infrastructure which is appropriate for the new development without any further destruction of our countryside.
And finally it will lead to the merging of Leamington, Old Milventon and Kenilworth into each other, and this is something town planners want to avoid and local people would not approve.

I do hope the Council will honour the long-established Green Belt. The public footpaths in the Old Milverton area are our only country walks which we can do without using the car to go further away.

We are writing to express our objections to the proposed housing and other development plans being suggested for the north of Leamington Spa, on green belt land. Whilst we appreciate the need for the council to develop new and affordable housing, we fail to see satisfactory reasons why this needs to be on existing green belt land in Milverton and Blackdown, particularly when alternative sites are available.
The proposals to develop houses, schools, superstores and a new road system around Old Milverton and Blackdown would change this area permanently and open the way for further erosion of the green belt in the future. This area between Leamington and Kenilworth provides a natural environment for wildlife, agriculture and rural activities, enjoyed by many for exercise and enjoyment as well as protecting animals, plants, birds and trees. Indeed, this area is accessed by people across the district and not just those who live in the immediate locality. There are very few areas of natural rural land around Leamington and Warwick which are so accessible for a broad number of people. Many people particularly enjoy access to the area around Old Milverton for walking, fishing, bird-watching, cycling, gardening and horse riding as well as the simple pleasures of just being in the countryside. Indeed it is hard to think of any other alternatives with such easy access from the town, providing a natural unspoilt area. The increased traffic and new road scheme proposed in the plan would have a devastating and permanent impact on the nature of this rural area.
Currently, this green belt land constitutes a natural distinction between the two towns and any development of this area, combined with expansion of Kenilworth will significantly blur the boundaries between the two towns and is yet another example of urban sprawl. The West Midlands has numerous examples of urban sprawl, with little distinction already between Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull and it is imperative, in our view that any green and open spaces are protected. We are not convinced that the council has provided sufficient evidence of the existence of any 'very special circumstances' as required to meet the Government's National Planning Policy Framework
There are sufficient alternatives in the district that would be more suitable such as the land East of Europa Way and next to Heathcote. In these areas, there is an existing infrastructure, including easy access onto the M40, access to superstores and existing primary and secondary schools, some of which have space for expansion to accommodate increased cohorts. Indeed, the original proposal to provide a primary school on the Warwick Gates estate could be re-instigated, thus addressing an existing shortfall and provide a much needed service for existing children living in the area. Surely it would make more sense to build-upon an existing framework without the need to build another large modern estate with accompanying infrastructure requirements.
In 2009, at substantial cost, a public consultation was undertaken by Warwick District Council and a development plan adopted which did not require release of this land. At a meeting in Old Milverton held on Monday 16th July, there was no satisfactory explanation offered to justify why these original plans have been changed. For example, the land near Grove Farm has now been removed. The reasons given regarding mergence with Bishops Tachbrook seem somewhat disingenuous as it is hard to see why this issue should be of more importance than mergence with Old Milverton and Blackdown. Indeed, the area around Grove Farm already has an available infrastructure and its development would not have such a great impact upon accessibility to countryside for the local population.
The population data and projections as presented as the basis of this plan do not appear to provide sufficient justification for the need to over- develop Warwick District. In recent years Leamington and Warwick did experience a population expansion in the "boom" years which led to a large and rapid re-development of significant areas around both towns to meet the needs of those moving into the area. However, in more recent years this expansion has slowed and many businesses and industries have closed or moved away from the area. The anticipated growth in employment and productivity alluded to by Councillors at the meeting was vague and only loosely linked to the national economic strategy for growth. In addition, with a fairly static birth rate and a growing elderly population, there is limited detail in the plan to show how the housing provision will aim to address the shifting demographic nature of the local population over the next century. Therefore, justification for such a large housing development in this side of the District is not evident and we question the data used by the council in their decision making.
To conclude, we believe these proposals constitute a flawed approach and urge you to protect our precious green belt by re-considering alternative options where development may be a more positive contribution to the district.

We moved from London about 4 years ago, and regularly enjoy the refreshing and uplifting walk from Leamington Town centre to neighbouring villages and pubs through Old Milverton and Blackdown. As Londoners, it is a major feature of our enjoyment of living here that we can do this. We are upset to learn that there are plans to destroy this area of natural beauty by building on it.

As such, I am writing to oppose the District Council's plans to develop on Green Belt Land as shown in their 2012 Preferred Options booklet. Nothing has changed since the 2009 Core Strategy, so there cannot be any justification for these fundamental changes now.

This is my letter of objection to building on Green Belt Land in Blackdown and Old Milverton as shown in the 2012 Preferred options Plan. This area is an asset to Leamington Spa. It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners riders and cyclists and should be preserved at all costs. It would be awful to lose an area of such natural beauty; there are so few areas like this left around Leamington. There must be other options to explore before destroying such a glorious area.

I have recently learnt of the proposal to develop the area of Black Down and Old Milverton thereby requiring a Northern Relief Road.

I wish to register my objection to this ill thought through proposal for the following reasons.

1) The development is the wrong side of Leamington/Warwick with the result traffic will increase to get it over to the southern side where business parks, shopping malls and the motorway are located. This is evidenced by the recognized need to build a new relief road. An unnecessary expense and environmentally wasteful.
2) Appropriate development land exists on the southern side. Lower cost, right location.
3) The development will use green belt land, ignoring previous District Councils findings it should be protected


The cost and environment appears to be ignored and one is suspicious this is driven by local interests hoping to profit from the development


I have lived in Warwickshire for over 25 years and understand the need for more housing development but believe this proposal is totally inappropriate.

When we receive relatives from the USA, they find it incredible how much countryside we in the UK have, considering how small the UK is, compared to its considerable population. A visit to the USA, Los Angeles a fine example, sprawls for over 80 miles to the north and south confirms,the major planning errors made there.
Our forefathers, gave us the country we enjoy today. Towns and Cities contained, even in times of massive industrial growth,.leaving open defined countryside. It is our responsibility, to maintain this for future generations to come. The UK population is increasing and needs to be housed,brown field sites should be used first, and it is only fair our town of Leamington Spa plays its part. It is essential the green belt is maintained, but could be carefully expanded. When looking at the proposed areas around Leamington, it is to the south of the town that creates less impact on the greenbelt, being quite some distance from Stratford on Avon, compared to a short distance from north Leamington to Kenilworth.
So lets hope common sense prevails, and vested interests are not allowed to fudge the issue. Its far to important.

Document scanned.

We are writing to you in objection to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown
contained in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local plan.
This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders,
walkers and cyclists. It improves the quality of living of the whole surrounding urban areas. It
provides character to the surrounding historical towns and environmental benefits such as filtering
the effects of noise and improving air pollution from the ever increasing transport traffic. Indeed
the plan proposes to destroy what is in effect a rare and perfect example of a Greenbelt area, which
should instead preserved and replicated.
We wish to remind that The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the
Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts, and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is
to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt listed below and
set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever as it:
* Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
* Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
* Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
* Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington as a historic town
* Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are
mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the
2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land
should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.
The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As
there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused
by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development
on this land.
Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I am stongly opposed to building new housing developments on greenbelt
land. I want to live in a town surrounded by nice countryside and
wildlife, NOT by urban sprawl. By all means build new developments,
but do them on brownfield sites: e.g. Ford Foundry, Queensway.
Please don't just build supermarkets (we don't need any more, regardless of whatever fat sweetner they pay you) on these sites -
build houses too. A list of other arguments follows. I do hope
take this into account and listen to the electorate.
I object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local plan.

This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It

Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north

Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth

Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment

Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)

Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.

The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.

Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I am writing to express a number of objections to the conclusions drawn in the New Local Plan. Whilst I fully accept the need to provide adequate housing capacity in the district, I feel that there are three crucial flaws in the assumptions and decisions made in the current version of the plan.

1. Projected level of housing demand. I feel the basis for projected demand has been unduly influenced by higher recent growth levels, and is likely to lead to overcapacity in future. On a related point , I accept that high house prices cause numerous social problems and that it is desirable to address this. However supply is only one determinant of price. Another way to moderate prices is to reduce demand, and one policy I would like you to consider in this context is more punitive taxation of second homes and buy-to-let homes to reduce the concentration of property ownership among a relatively privileged few. Reducing the concentration of property ownership would go a long way to addressing the levels of house price inflation seen over the last fifteen years.

2. Building on the Green Belt. The plan involves substantial development on the green belt, which is only permissible in exceptional circumstances. I do not feel that this criteria has been met, as available non-greenbelt land around Europa Way and Witnash, which also has the benefit of being within easy reach of the M40. This leads me to my final point.

3. Resultant pressure on infrastructure. Building to the North of Leamington would lead to a significant increase in the volume of traffic having to cross though Leamington to reach the M40. I already experience heavy congestion in my morning commute to South Birmingham, where it often takes me as long to get out of Leamington as it does to reach J3 of the M40. I have serious concerns over what the proposed substantial increase in homes North of Leamington would mean for the volumes of traffic trying to cross through the town centre every day. On top of this there is the cost of the proposed relief road.

I hope that you will take these objections into consideration when you collate the consultation feedback.

I write to register my objections to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local Plan.
The reasons for my objections are as follows:-
* The land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
* The land in question is designated Greenbelt. Plans to build upon it are against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
* The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF by
* Preventing the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
* Preventing the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
* Helping to safeguard the countryside from encroachment
* Helping to preserve the setting and special character of the historic town of Leamington .
* There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exist here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.
I ask therefore that the options be reconsidered.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It:
Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.
The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.
Please reconsider your Preferred Options
Our objections relate to Locations 4 & 5 and 7.

The New Local Plan suggests concreting over the rapidly disappearing green belt between Leamington and Kenilworth. Once that step is taken, it is irreversible.

Our objections are as follows:

1. The land is very valuable for exercise and recreation. It is the closest green land available to us which allows users to get away from the town as it is walkable.
2. There is far more suitable land for development particuarly around Europa Way.
3. There are no exceptional circumstances to build on this green belt.
4. There are alternative non green belt sites elsewhere.
5. On page 4 of the Preferred Options booklet, you state "we want to make sure we avoid growth which could lead to existing settlements merging' but that is exactly what will happen if locations 4, 5 and 7 are developed.
6. It will drastically change the nature of the environment.

Leamington merged into Warwick many years ago. We are sure that was not what was planned. And yet your current plan ensures it will merge go on into Kenilworth. The green belt is too important for future generations to be lost forever. Please, please do not allow this to happen.

We are writing to object to the recent local plan preferred option number 4, Milverton Gardens, as outlined in your 'preferred options summary' issued in May 2012 for the following three reasons;

1 ) Firstly, the proposals for the development of this greenbelt do not warrant the "Very Special Circumstances" as outlined in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework. In fact the Government's National Planning Policy Framework states that that any harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. But we do not see what the benefit will be. According to Warwick District Council the special circumstances are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. But that is not true and these are not very special circumstances. The 2009 Core Strategy plan stated that land south of Leamington and not greenbelt was identified and is still available for development. Why is this not being considered? This area of land appears to be perfect for develop, as it already has the infrastructure (roads etc) in place to support its development. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the town centres. Apparently, this land is not deemed attractive to developers as they won't make as much profit in this area, If this is true then please understand that this is NO reason (and certainly not 'very special circumstances') to develop the greenbelt.

2) This area of greenbelt is not just any ordinary greenbelt, it is a valuable amenity, an area of land shared by dog walkers, families enjoying a picnic, ramblers, cyclists, runners, horse riders and it should be recognised as such. I believe that it should be protected for this reason alone, however it is also a valuable as high quality agricultural land.

3) The north of Leamington Spa does not have existing infrastructure and the cost to build it will be huge (£28m). I understand that proposals for expansion of local villages was based on there being the infrastructure to support it, why not the same strategy for the urban fringe. It doesn't make sense. The proposed "Northern Relief Road" is not necessary as will only take new home owners away from the town, this along with proposed "out of town" retail operations will destroy independent retailers in Leamington and will take trade away from the town. If the development is in the South of Leamington, there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost.
We simply do not think this is a good plan.

Finally, We have been extremely disappointed about the consultation process. We have certainly not been consulted. We have attended two meetings where a man from the council attempted to justify the plans, but we naively thought that he would ask us our views. A true consultation process would have enabled local people to have the opportunity to discuss these plans through forums and questionnaires.
Please, please, please think again and do not build on precious greenbelt.

With regard to the local plan consultation, while, at one level, I feel it is important to have smaller developments shared around the town rather than all in one place, I also feel it is vital to use all brown sites before resorting to green belt development.

If houses were to be built on the Milverton Green Belt, I would hope that a good bus service would be provided that would also take in and improve the route through the Beverley Hills estate.

I would also hope that the footpath to the Saxon Mill would be preserved and that trees and grass would be provided either side.

I also think that trees to provide screening and plenty of open space in a new housing estate is important.

As a resident of North Leamington, I am writing to object to the Council's plan to allow housing to be built on green belt land near Milverton and Blackdown on the following grounds:-
* The countryside between Kenilworth and Leamington needs to be preserved in order to maintain Kenilworth and Leamington as 2 distinct towns and avoid the threat of urban sprawl which has seen the virtual merger of Leamington and Warwick along Emscote Road.
* It is an attractive area of countryside which provides an important local amenity for walking and other outdoor activities.
* Given that there is alternative land available to the south of Leamington, I do not not accept that the Council can show "exceptional circumstances" as to why precious green belt land should be used. It is all too tempting to allow developers to use green belt as such land is generally easier to build on and more profitable for the builders.
* The village of Old Milverton has a distinctive rural character which will be lost if the development is allowed
* The main road between Leamington and Kenilworth already becomes congested at peak time and new housing will only add to this. I understand that the Council propose building a relief road but this will only further damage the rural nature of the area in question and would be a waste of public money.
Overall the development proposals for this area are misconceived and I urge the Council to reconsider its plan and look for other areas more suited to the building of new housing.

I am concerned about the following aspects of the plan you have recently put out for consultation:-

1. The infringement for housing development for no good reason other than planning convenience on the Green Belt to the north of Leamington, which in the long term means that the town will become just another suburb of Coventry and logically then be incorporated in the City rather than having any local government autonomy.
2. The lack of any coherent infrastructure or transport planning which fails properly to identify or provide for the private and public transport needs of the proposed new residents. In particular, the following require attention:-
2.1. The likely road traffic patterns, given that the new housing will be occupied by real people rather than model citizens whose activities will comply with what is thought to be best for them
2.2. The encouragement of cycling and walking
2.3. The carbon impact of the development
2.4. The absence of proper facilities for buses
2.5. The inadequacy of the railheads at Leamington, Warwick and Warwick Parkway, all of which now face parking constraints.
2.6. The inappropriate link road between the A452 and the A46 passing through Old Milverton; this is both environmentally destructive and appears to have no proper traffic planning justification.

Please find below my objection to the proposal to use greenbelt land in North Leamington to build over 2000 houses:-

National Planning Policy Framework requires "Very Special Circumstances" (I'm not convinced that there are any!)

* The fundamental aim of Greenbelt policy as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

* The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt. It also requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. I believe that there are many other areas in South Leamington i.e Europa way that could sustain such building work, in the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council) land south of Leamington (not in Green Belt), was identified and is still available, for development. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure (roads etc) to support the development, and the new residents who will live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the town centres.
* Therefore, the previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy) is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the "special circumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are wrong.
* Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt.

The Green Belt
* The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's study of the Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value
* The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out five purposes for Greenbelt land. In summary these are, to prevent urban sprawl of built up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, to protect the country side from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land. The Greenbelt land identified for development in the Preferred Option does carry out these purposes and its development would therefore be contrary to the NPPF.

* The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.

Recreation Value of Old Milverton and Blackdown
* The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, riders, and cyclists. It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to be enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park land would detract from, rather than enhance its value.
* Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation. If the proposals go ahead it is only a matter of time before it is also absorbed by Leamington.

Proposed New Roads
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
* Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion.
* The dual carriage way will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateway to Leamington and southern gateway to Kenilworth.
* A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. Traffic flows tend to be north to south rather than east to west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns. If the development does not go ahead the road will not be required.
* A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
* If the proposed development is concentrated in the South of Leamington there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost than the £28m allocated to construct a "Northern Relief Road".
* New Out of Town Stores
* The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area an attractive place to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.

Loss of Agricultural Land
* There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Blackdown and Old Milverton

Number of Homes included in the Forecasts
* Warwick District Council has added nearly 1400 homes to the number that it anticipates will be required so as to include a "buffer" in the forecasts. If this "buffer" is removed from the forecast there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals.